bioshockfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Elizabeth
Pitch Isn't a hired muscle having to rescue somebody's daughter the story from the pitch for the first Bioshock?MarcoDelMarco 00:37, August 13, 2010 (UTC) :No where close pal. [[User:GeneralOwnage55|'GeneralOwnage55']] [[User Talk:GeneralOwnage55|'The Message Box']] 04:21, August 13, 2010 (UTC) ::You haven't played a BioShock game, have you.Einsteinium99 04:28, August 13, 2010 (UTC) She looks very similar to Gwen From Guil Wars [[User:GeneralOwnage55|'GeneralOwnage55']] [[User Talk:GeneralOwnage55|'The Message Box']] 04:23, August 13, 2010 (UTC) :According to the Bioshock pitch book, the original concept was for the player to be Carlos Cuello, a cult deprogrammer hired to rescue an heiress from a cult on a volcanic island. So, Marco is correct and the others are ... rude. Nice work guys. : 13:14, August 13, 2010 (UTC) ::Thank you Roygbiv666. I said the PITCH, not the game.MarcoDelMarco 13:38, August 13, 2010 (UTC) OH HELL!!! So,if you fight Him,Elizabeth will get angry?!I'm curious to know how I'll survive the scene at the end of the gameplay video then. 04:31, October 21, 2010 (UTC) :There's always another way. Just ask yourself what Gandhi would do if he were assaulted by a thirty foot-tall clockwork gargoyle. --Willbachbakal 17:45, October 21, 2010 (UTC) ::It'll probably be one criteria for what ending you get at the end. Vae Infectus 22:05, October 22, 2010 (UTC) :::Well, let's remember that gameplay videos and demos are hardly (if ever) the exact same sequence of events that take place in the final stage of the game, the stage that gets sold na dplayed by people all over the world. Having said that, while it's obviously inevitable that you will come across Him and are faced with the choice of whether to fight Him or not, I think it's likely that Him won't simply swoop down and 1-hit KO you (technically not a grammatical error, lol). My guess is there'll be a way to temporarily incapacitate Him, like say, paralyze him with an electrical generator, or cause anenormous heap of rubble and debris to rain down on Him, burying Him and buying you time to escape or deal damage. Personally, when I get this game, I'm gonna go the "hero road" and be a good guy like I did with the Little Sisters in Bioshock 1. Key of Destiny 21:50, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::See,I will always go hero when it comes to shit like that.But I'm not sure if I can with this.:/ 05:43, November 7, 2010 (UTC) He's got a point. How are we supposed to stop Him from murdering Booker without hurting Him to much? And like you two said I'll see wha I can do to stay a hero in the eyes of Elizabeth. Won't wan tot piss her off (I mean, look at her)! 21:12, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Irrational's 3rd update to Elizabeth Other than the gameplay appearance altered from the original trailer, the upcoming E3 gameplay shows a 3rd version of her different ft of the previous gameplay video. A photo by an Irrational forum member, sh0dan, showed this image comparison: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/Zer07/BioShock/elizabethcomparison.jpg Anyone else notice the changes in the new Elizabeth? Evans0305 00:28, May 27, 2011 (UTC) :Of course, dude. All the iterations of her model have flaws they are slowly working to correct. I remember hating the version to the left because she had this Disney ugly cartoon head. Her head is a lot better now, although the eyes are still a little weird. Hopefully, she'll end up looking normal. ~Ṃᶒɠą§ɔîéɳčę { talk } 00:41, May 27, 2011 (UTC) ::Despite the flaws, I'm going to miss the Christina Ricci/Olivia Wilde version of Elizabeth T_T --Evans0305 03:47, June 7, 2011 (UTC) ::MAKE THAT THE FOURTH UPDATE ON ELIZABETH: ::I just watched the Beast of America trailer, and looks like Lizzie got yet ANOTHER makeover: http://i46.tinypic.com/8xsqwm.png If you compare it to her other model above, you can see her dress is now completely covering her chest. Her hair looks a little different and she is now wearing a white necklace. Was this due to little boys whining about her boobs hanging out? Poor Elizabeth, when will she ever catch a break? I liked her 2nd look more, if they kept that cute face/hair but gave her different clothes, I wouldn't mind. -_-;; "CarsAndGuitars." 08:48, October 25, 2012 (UTC) Well, I think her face had been like that since the last trailer, since her bustline was smaller than the previous demo. As for the clothes, I think she only wore those when being rescued by Booker, since she was trapped inside of a caged room isolated from the citizens. The photograph in the beginning of the trailer showed that she was very childish, wearing the same kind of white outfits since she was a child. The one you showed is almost close to something she wore in the old photograph, not to mention she's later seen wearing her blue outfit later in the same trailer, so this white outfit is probably temporary. I speculate that since the majority of Columbia is looking for her, Booker more likely made her go in disguise, changing her hair and clothes. Evans0305 (talk) 11:00, October 25, 2012 (UTC) Well, it looks like Irrational Games used that cosplayer as a face model for Elizabeth now. Her head is noticeably a lot smaller and more proportionate to her body (thank god), her hair is a much darker brown, and she looks a bit older compared to her previous model, too. I'm not complaining, though. I think looks great and I'm loving her new look. I hope IG will never ever change her again. That poor girl went through so many changes already, I'm ashamed to admit that I almost feel sorry for her. ~ Cars And Guitars (talk) 03:42, December 17, 2012 (UTC) Bioshock Infinite Cosplayer Becomes Official Face Of Elizabeth Natalie Portman to voice Elizabeth?? Was wondering this because in the E3 2011 Trailer (xbox 360) it sounds as if she is....I may be wrong though.ScXthursday 23:55, June 6, 2011 (UTC) :It doesn't sound like Portman at all. She sounds like she's voiced by Anna Graves, who did voice Naledi Atkins in the BioShock 2 Multiplayer. Despite the character accent, hearing Naledi's yell sounds very similar to Elizabeth's "Hit it now" yell from last year's demo.Evans0305 03:41, June 7, 2011 (UTC) :Courtnee Draper, FTW. <3 - "CarsAndGuitars." 10:14, October 25, 2012 (UTC) :LOL I forgot that I left that there a while ago. Quite awkward now looking back at it. Oh well, that was at the time when nobody knew who was Elizabeth's voice acress, so we just tried to figure that out for a while. Anyways, this is old news, since we already know its Courtnee Draper. Evans0305 (talk) 11:05, October 25, 2012 (UTC) Elizabeth and Comstock Is anyone else wondering how Comstock is supposed to help Elizabeth to control her powers? Maybe he can also open tears or such... Art Dent 20:28, August 2, 2011 (UTC) :Maybe he was involved in the espiraments done to her. Isaac And Elizabeth I guess that the most recent editor did not quite get what i meant. Yes, they have their 'drastic' differences, but in general, they're very alike. Look: Elizabeth isn't the MAIN protagonist of Infinite. ''Though Isaac is. But i never said that they both are the main protagonist. I said both are protagonists. Yes, their powers are different (Isaac's power to see Marker blueprints stored on his mind and Elizabeth's power to open Tears) and what i meant was that they were gifted with '''some sort of very powerful mental ability. ' Yes, the cities are vastly different, but both play the same role: To shelter civilians and show advance of technology in that universe. Both Sprawl and Columbia, in a resume, are cities settled above the ground where both these characters appear. Yes, many characters are hunted by two different factions (Or even three) but none of them has the above stated similarities. I'm pulling Unitologists/EarthGov and Vox Populi/Founders on this because i'm comparing Elizabeth and Isaac. I'm sorry for not leaving this explicit on my edit and i hope i do in next editions. 02:52, January 26, 2012 (UTC) It seems you didn't quite understand why I removed your edit. The reasons you give are too vague to warrant mention: many characters have powerful abilities (Elizabeth's aren't even mental, they're based on the manipulation of parallel universes), many of them far more related to Elizabeth's (like Remilia Scarlet from the Touhou Project, whose power is the manipulation of fate). The concept of the city in the sky isn't rare either, and Columbia is far closer to the city of Laputa from Gulliver's Travels in the sense that's it's advanced, created by jingoists and used as a superweapon. The thing is, by looking for similarities as general as the ones you're proposing, it'd be possible to find a great deal many more characters who'd be as eligible as Isaac Clarke, if not more. Take Sheeta from Miyazaki's The Castle in the Sky, Yuriko Omega from Red Alert 3 or even Jack, pursued by both Fontaine and Ryan. Please think this through. --Willbachbakal 21:02, January 26, 2012 (UTC) :The bottom line is that adding personal speculation about similarities is against the BioShock Wiki:Trivia Policy. ~'Gardimuer' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 22:41, January 27, 2012 (UTC) Elizabeth and period accurate clothing. I'm ready to be visciously attacked by completely blindsighted fanboys, but this is seriously irritating me. Why is Elizabeth running around in, more or less, her underwear? (EG: corset = underwear in the 1920s) If you're going to do that, why not just give her a damn bra to trot about in instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • ) 22:50, 2012 February 19 (UTC). Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. :Yes, Elizabeth's clothing is definitely not period appropriate. You'd have to ask the designers why they made that choice. ~'Gardimuer' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 02:20, February 20, 2012 (UTC) That is a good question....one that I have no answer to. I'm sure there's some logical explanation besides catering to fanboys ;D Key of Destiny 23:55, June 19, 2012 (UTC) I dunno. Maybe they wanted to portray her as a sexually liberated young woman, free from the shackles of an antiquated dress code? Or maybe they just wanted to show her tits. --Willbachbakal 00:30, June 20, 2012 (UTC) I completely agree, it's simple game design logic: our heroine's MUST be sexy. The designer's could have easily looked up typical period clothing (or Hell, just watch Titanic, that film takes place in 1912), but instead they decided to show off her breasts to appease the average game jockey; I doubt a prostitue would show off that much cleavage at that time. I wouldn't mind it so much if BioShock wasn't a game series that prided itself in its attention to historical details. Unownshipper 03:49, June 20, 2012 (UTC) :I agree that her prominent bust is more than a little bit silly, but I like to think that Irrational will justify it somehow in-game. Maybe it's because she was locked away from society since she was a child, so she never learned the etiquette of how a proper lady should dress. But then again, living by herself all the time and having no need to impress anyone, she'd more likely have chosen a more comfortable (less constrictive) outfit. :Gasp! Maybe it's all Songbird's doing?? That monster has been using her as a dress up doll and having her wear ridiculous outfits to amuse itself! ~'Gardimuer' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 04:16, June 20, 2012 (UTC) Oh, no! You've spoiled the game! It all makes sense now! If our main protagonist were a female, Songbird would try to kidnap you too! Key of Destiny 15:30, June 20, 2012 (UTC) :Why does this remind me of the Dollmaker from Alice: Madness Returns? --Willbachbakal 15:59, June 20, 2012 (UTC) Well, she was being held captive for 15 years. Maybe her clothing was gathered for her before her capture? Gamer1191 (talk) 05:42, August 7, 2012 (UTC) :If that's the case, then it's even more anachronistic! :Unownshipper (talk) 00:56, October 26, 2012 (UTC) Now that the game is out, we know that the dress isn't hers and that she didn't really choose it. It's Lady Comstock's. On the airship, she came out in it and said it was all she could find. I would say that perhaps that means the rest is missing...except that we see Lady Comstock herself wearing it on a statue of her, and probably in other places, too, and she is likewise not wearing a shirt over the corset. And you're also forgetting that Columbia has been cut off from the rest of the US for almost twenty years, so our idea of "period appropriate" won't always apply. Lady Comstock was highly admired by everyone in Columbia, so her wearing that kind of clothing may have influenced the populace's perception of corsets so that it's no longer seen as underwear. 22:20, November 23, 2013 (UTC) Elizabeth a parallel to Eleanor? *SPOILERS, just sayin* 1. Both are the "lamb" of thier respective cults 2. Both are held captive by the head of said cults. Both leaders are a "parent" to them in some way. 3. Both were being raised and groomed to succeed thier parent as the head of thier group. 4. Both were experimented on to give them thier powers and to "reach thier potential", to create a utopia. Sophia's collectivist utopia, and Comstock's utopia for his own "American" ideals. 5. Both are rescued by thier "father". Eleanor is rescued by her Big Daddy from her biological mother. Elizabeth is rescued by her biological (and proper) father, against her "Big Daddy" (as well as an imposter father) 6. Both have fantastical powers, Eleanor via ADAM, Elizabeth via tears. 7. Both are sheltered (and prodigies because of it) 8. Both were kidnapped from thier fathers and brought to a amazing city, just as horrible as they are fantastical. 9. Both are extremely willful and very rebellious against thier "parent". 10. Also, both had a nack for cracking security. Also thanks to thier being raised in a "prison" 11. Even thier appeareance is similar, Brown hair, Blue eyes. Like Letuce said something like, with each version the traits become different until they dont exist at all. So are Eleanor and Elizabeth basicly alt universe counterparts that have been so far removed they are quite different people, born to different families, genetically different, but still a version of the other? Variables and Constants. THE FOLLOWING WAS CUT FROM THE MAIN PAGE: Elizabeth shares some similarities with Eleanor Lamb: *They are both seen as god like beings worshipped by the citizens of their respective cities. *They are both connected to lambs (Eleanor's surname is Lamb and she is referred to as the "daughter of the Lamb", while Elizabeth is referred to as The Lamb. *They can be seen as the "daughters" of both the protagonists and the antagonists of their respective games/storylines. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Side note. Is Booker DeWitt a alternate Mark Meltzer? They were both fathers sent to a strange city via circumstances to find thier missing daughters. But are stopped by the daughters "guardian". Mark Meltzer gets stopped by the Big Sister, Booker DeWitt by the Songbird (as old Elizabeth said, in her time line, Booker was always stopped by Songbird) And tho it is never stated, it appears Mark Meltzer was some kind of Investigator. Possibly a PI like Booker. But these are just guesses. 09:50, March 30, 2013 (UTC)Remington "Eagle Eye" Vanderslice It was never actually stated during "There's Something in the Sea" what Meltzer's profession was, but it seemed (at least to me) that he was an "unofficial" investigator, looking into the disappearances of the little girls because he could see patterns. He was constantly harassed by the police, so even if he were an "official" investigator, it wouldn't have been for the NYPD. As for the similarities between Eleanor and Elizabeth, it's entirely possible that Levine may have decided to use some of those traits from Bioshock 2 for Infinite--remember that 2K made the sequel to Bioshock, not Irrational. Key of Destiny (talk) 13:36, October 13, 2013 (UTC) There's Something in the Sea There doesnt seem to be any preamble to this presented SitS sequence to set the stage (was there ever one?) The first story tacked up is from Ireland (a local paper) , so why/how would Meltzer (in the US) hear about it? And on the 'first day' - that should have been a result of him looking for similar things and turning up that story later as he is searching. Day One probably should have been some note/correspondance putting him onto this 'mystery' thing and at least justified why he would be involved. Is there stuff like that missing from the archived SitS materials as it seems a no-brainer to have started it properly. Testxyz (talk) 08:56, October 14, 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I don't remember if there was a preamble of sorts...if there was, it was likely when 2K announced the campaign itself; I've been through every day of the SitS archive, and the "story" begins with Meltzer gathering newspaper clippings on his board. If there was a "prologue", it wasn't part of the archive; might have just been something like "little girls are vanishing all over the world; one man investigates these strange disappearances", etc. Key of Destiny (talk) 13:43, October 14, 2013 (UTC) "Our" Elisabeth doesn't drown Booker. "Our" Elisabeth is not part of the crowd drowning Booker; this is the conclusion drawn by many on the official 2K forums. However it doesn't seem the consensus here since my revision to the Wiki was deleted three times. Could you tell me why? PartTimePlayer (talk) 15:52, March 30, 2013 (UTC) I'm fairly certain it isn't based on the fact that "she" is not wearing the badge you chose for her earlier in the game. But that might just be because they, Booker and Elizabeth have both gone back in time before that ever happened. MBaskerville (talk) 04:04, March 31, 2013 (UTC) I Baskerville's right, then this should mean that Booker does not have the "AD" branded into his right hand Mrbear420 (talk) 04:10, April 1, 2013 (UTC) I think there is enough evidence in-game to point to the Elizabeth who drowns you not being "our" Elizabeth. When Elizabeth first introduces you to the lighthouses, she has the same appearance she does at the end of the game and has this appearance until Booker opens the very last door. In addition to this, Elizabeth brings him to the baptism that he rejects and she looks the same as "our" Elizabeth, despite her not even existing when the baptism took place. It is not until Booker enters the universe where he will be drowned that Elizabeth's appearance changes. Booker even comments on this, saying, "wait.. you're not.. who are you?" (paraphrasing). 06:47, April 3, 2013 (UTC) I was just thinking about this, and I must say I agree. It doesn't seem to be "our" Elizabeth. The badge is gone when it was there right up to that point, and Booker even says to her, "…Wait. You-You're not…y-you're not… Who are you?" Probably precisely because the badge is gone. Then there's the fact that right before this, he says, "Wait…why are we back here?" and she replies, "This isn't the same place, Booker." That's rather puzzling, as well. (Anyone have any theories on that?) In any case, the wiki probably shouldn't claim outright that it's not, but simply point out that it might not be, based on that. 22:13, November 23, 2013 (UTC) Elizabeth's Age At the end of the game, Elizabeth says this while in Booker's apartment, "You shared this room with your regret for almost 20 years... til one day, a man came to you... offered you a chance of redemption." Doesn't this imply that she is indeed 19 years old, but nearing her birthday? I have yet to see anything but outdated info to prove she is 20. 23:21, April 4, 2013 (UTC) I think the assertion that she is 20 is sound, because the timeline in the Hall of Heroes suggests that she was born in 1893. That would make her 19 if it were accurate, but she appeared to be about 1 year old when Booker gave her to Robert, making her 20 overall. Molotov.cockroach (talk) 21:09, April 6, 2013 (UTC) Elizabeth Comstock? Elizabeth adamantly rails against having anything to do with Comstock, and no one in the game ever calls her this, not even him. It seems disingenuous to call her by that name. Molotov.cockroach (talk) 21:56, April 6, 2013 (UTC) I agree that it is unnecessary to call her that, it is never said in-game, Elizabeth does not know of the relation herself, and it is a spoiler right in the title, which should be evaded, as no one can even see a link without having that relationship spoiled. And the relationship is not clear from the start, it only becomes in the Hall of Heroes. I agree it should be called just "Elizabeth", as that is, for all in the world, her name. --Fijure (talk) 22:15, April 6, 2013 (UTC) Family Section = Massive Spoiler! I feel it should be noted that the family section underneath Elizabeth's portrait is a huge spoiler that isn't supposed to be known until late into the game, and isn't officially stated until the flashback sequences at the finale. I came into the wiki to see what general info I could find about her without having anything major spoiled for her, except right below her portrait, directly next to the "SPOILERS BELOW" icon I see "Family - Booker DeWitt (Father) and nearly did a spit-take. It is really inconsiderate and counter-productive to the spoiler free approach to have that information displayed where one can see it without realizing theyh're about to encounter unlabeled spoilers. Anything that significant should be limited to what can be included in spoiler tags. 23:53, April 6, 2013 (UTC) Thank you very much for making my point for me. I came to address that exact same thing. I'll move my comment up here instead: I would really strongly suggest we do not list Elizabeth's family relations in her character infobox. This game has even been out for two weeks, those character boxes are not spoiler-tagged, and that is pretty much THE spoiler for the game. I think it's just plain courteous to not do that. Molotov.cockroach (talk) 02:11, April 7, 2013 (UTC) Molotov.cockroach (talk) 02:12, April 7, 2013 (UTC) Elizabeth dead? If Elizabeth kill every Booker DeWitt, before he reborn, does it mean she never born?--Bloodhit (talk) 13:39, April 9, 2013 (UTC) :They killed the Booker that was going to become Comstock. Based on the stinger, it seems that the "normal" Booker remains alive, and thus Anna is still born. HOWEVER, this DOES mean that Columbia is never created and Anna never gets taken, thus the person we call "Elizabeth" doesn't exist. So, in a sense, the answer to your question is "yes". 06:14, November 24, 2013 (UTC) :---- :Simple (or Not) answer is Schrödinger's cat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat ). :Actually it isnt, at the same time it is.... :The whole story line is based on some multiverse theory which leads to endless confusion about anything being real or permanent or even existing. An Elizabeth (out of an infinite number of them) for whatever reason can skip between realities and apparently take a Booker (one out of an infinite number of them) with her. :Worlds - one out of an infinite number of them.... Columbia -- one out of an infinite number of them... :Every possible combination of events exist simultaneously (supposedly). So if one Elizabeth in one reality gets dirtnapped prematurely, there are (will always be) all the others that already happened previously (a clown exploded near her in at least one) and others much later (more clowns and anything else you care to name causing whatever) and in others she isnt quite the same person, and yet in more others there never is a Comstock/Columbia/Luteces/fire being invented and you arrive at 'Elizabeth' some other infinitely spawned ways. Every possible thing from any possible sequence of events exists simultaneously. :SO she CANNOT kill every Booker/Comstock or their standins because there will always be an infinite supply even if an infinite number of her attempt it. :Confusing? Yep. Anything ever really achieved? Nope. It (whatever) all has happened, will always happen. :Makes you wonder what we could have had for the game if they hadnt gone down this rabbit hole. :Testxyz (talk) 08:07, November 24, 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't say Elizabeth became "dead", but rather "nonexistent", if Booker DeWitt died before he could father Elizabeth, which is why at the end of BioShock Infinite when DeWitt dies, all the various Annas and Elizabeths just simply vanish. Technically, you can't kill somebody that no longer exists if the person who fathered or mothered them is dead. End of story and discussion on my part. (Vic George (talk) 12:07, November 24, 2013 (UTC)) --- Except for that little 'multiverse' issue. An Elizabeth is dead or some bunch of them .... How exactly does time travel work in this 'quantum' multiverse anyway?? Or is she just sliding (somehow) to some alternate universe where much the same things happened, except somewhat later in the continumum (so she can get there early in the sequence of events before after all her stuff worked itself out so she knows what point it all allegedly happened from), and she might be zapping a Booker there (How exactly does that Booker coming along with her (somehow), somehow 'becoming' THE local Booker (already there) work??) SO that would be here (if she could) eliminating some potential Elizabeths THERE (infinite number which might have happened in the future (or not in many of the potential futures branching from that one point) ...) but leaving all the others elsewhere in the multiverse to go along their progression (each one fracturing into a seperate reality -- an infinity of infinites within a heartbeat). Meanwhile, back at the ranch : a different Booker and Elizabeth (infinite number of THEM actually) are having a good time in Paris where THAT (local) Elizabeth decided the revenge thing and the meddling thing just wasnt gonna work out. Testxyz (talk) 16:20, November 24, 2013 (UTC) About the New Profile Picture... ...Elizabeth's new profile picture is so gosh darn beautiful. Huge props to whoever uploaded it. The new Booker profile picture is great, too. Finally these two amazing characters finally got a proper picture added to their respective wikia pages. Great job! ~ Cars And Guitars (talk) 23:17, April 9, 2013 (UTC) There isn't really a general comments section on the wiki as far as I know, so I'm just going to add to this comment. The screenshots look really good in general for all the major characters, props to all of you with beefy PCs putting up these high-res screenshots, they look really good. Thegreatvortigaunt (talk) 23:48, April 9, 2013 (UTC) Stuff that didn't belong under the "Behind the Scenes" *It is possible that the Elizabeth with whom Booker travels during the events of the game is not present at his drowning. This is evidenced by the fact that the Elizabeth in this lighthouse/universe is not wearing the bird/cage pendant, nor does she exhibit bruises and scratches from being recaptured by Comstock. Booker, aware of her absence in the moments leading up to the drowning, turns to the parallel universe Elizabeths and says, "Wait, you're not, who are you?" *Elizabeth shares many parallels with the Little Sisters in Rapture: aside from being both young girls, they are also the most coveted source of power within their respective cities. Elizabeth's guardian, Songbird, is itself similar to the Big Daddies of BioShock and BioShock 2, and both play a part in their wards' isolation from the outside world. Both are also used for their power at the cost of their own freedom. This parallel is made clear once Elizabeth transports herself, Booker and Songbird to Rapture and watches her jailor die: in the background, a Little Sister can be seen mourning over the body of her fallen Big Daddy, mirroring Elizabeth's own loss. *Though this was more possibly unintentional, Elizabeth role also parallels Eleanor Lamb from Bioshock 2. Both are very young girls who grew up in isolation from others. While they were in isolation, Elizabeth and Eleanor would self teach themselves many things like history or electronics. Each of their parents raised them in hopes they will uphold their own ideals after they pass on and are used for the powers they hold within them. Both girls had a close bond to the player character of their respective games and would become a helpful character AI during gameplay (though Eleanor helps during the climax of Bioshock 2). Interestingly, the player character in the games are a "father" of some sort to the girls. Although Booker is revealed to be Elizabeth's actual father, it's a debatable subject among some fans whether Subject Delta is Eleanor's real father or not; though their was a removed plan by Bioshock 2's developers that would have proven he was. *The fate of the final Elizabeth present at the end of the game is left intentionally ambiguous. It has been suggested that she also disappears, and the credits roll just before she does. However, it has also been theorized that this version of Elizabeth, having attained incredible powers after the destruction of the Siphon, was able to transcend space and time, and thus wasn't affected by the destruction of Comstock's reality. *It is possible that the "original" Elizabeth is not present at the drowning, as the central Elizabeth does not have the cage/bird pin on her choker which was present up until this final scene. Booker also appears to recognize that the Elizabeth in front of him is not the same person prior to allowing himself to be drowned. If this is the case then it is also possible that the "original" Elizabeth is still in the sea of lighthouses, as this is the last place that we see her, pin and all. Character Info Box Picture I think the image made by User:NewBH is very nice, but, for the purposes of keeping the basic format of all pages standardized, I think there should be an in-game image of Elizabeth just like all the other major characters of the game. So, unless there's a large protest, I'd like to change the picture back. Unownshipper (talk) 21:33, May 1, 2013 (UTC) Who's Elizabeth's voice actor when Stephen Garrett was voicing Booker in the 2010/2011 gameplay trailers? 09:10, June 8, 2013 (UTC) Can I change the history? The history on Elizabeth's page needs to follow her actual history (i.e. her birth, Booker selling her, etc.) It's too cinematic and not presented factually. I tried doing it before but someone edited it. Can we please make her history in order? If it is spoilers we need to worry about we can just put a warning, besides, you shouldn't be on the wiki if you haven't finished the game yet. --Gearslover01 (talk) 14:13, August 25, 2013 (UTC) :I agree, it should be presented more factually like on Booker's page. :Pauolo (talk) 14:19, August 25, 2013 (UTC) ::The reason why we don't, I think, is to not give away spoilers. ::Geekius Maximus (talk) 14:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC) :::You don't say? Then why does Booker's page start with a spoiler section? :::No, the real issue, and that doesn't only concern those two pages, is that we should be able to hide the spoiler sections with a hide/show template or something like that, like for summary tables. I suggested that once but it seems that might be an issue with people who don't have the appropriate browser. :::Pauolo (talk) 15:58, August 25, 2013 (UTC) ::::Let's not get mean here guys. Why not write the "History" section here the way you'd like it to be presented (ie, less cinematic) and if everyone's cool with it, replace it afterwards? That way no one will get in an editing war. Just do the moments before BioShock Infinite up to when Booker DeWitt finds her in the tower, then we can just relabel the section marked "Biography" with "BioShock Infinite" ::::Unownshipper (talk) 19:36, August 25, 2013 (UTC) Elizabeth as a Splicer ? Not even speculation, just amusing pondering -- future episodes of BaS where Booker and Elizabeth get deeper into the Rapture situation they start splicing with interesting cosmetic results upon their faces, etc... In BS1/BS2 we never really saw ourselves, biut now with a duo we could...... Testxyz (talk) 09:37, October 12, 2013 (UTC) She says its a new Plasmid called 'Tear'. He should have then said - "gotta watch that stuff it'll stunt your growth" (old addage about smoking....) Burial At Sea I wonder what's going to happen to the information regarding the Elizabeth from the upcoming Burial At Sea DLC for BioShock Infinite, whether that might warrant a separate page for that version of the main character or what. (Vic George (talk) 11:07, October 12, 2013 (UTC)) Pendant The reason I always choose the bird for Lizzie's new pendant is because the free-flying bird represents personal freedom. But the cage represents imprisonment and restricted space. ZanyDragon (talk) 14:28, November 1, 2013 (UTC) Aged Elizabeth model I noticed when I was watching the cutscene with the aged Elizabeth giving you the key to stopping Songbird that while her face is aged her hands appear to be the same. Is it possible that they simply reused the young Elizabeth model and put a new face on and gave her slightly different clothes without doing anything to the rest of her? I'm hoping some one else can confirm this. If so could they please put it in the behind the scenes section of the main article. --SpartanD14 (talk) 02:22, December 4, 2013 (UTC) Hear Catch : The convenient 'finding stuff for you' sidekick NPC behavior... Funny would have been throwing the stuff to/at you and you (Booker) missing them and them falling all over on the ground or even breaking/smashing against a wall (ever try to throw a stack of coins 20 feet to someone ?? and them using their 'off' hand to try to catch it?) . A few sounds of breaking bottles and blue/red puddles on the ground (and some nice cussing or 'oops' responses) and the player having wasted time under fire (or now having to scramble to pickup the stuff). Having her throw some of the more normal loot - "Here have a Pineapple or Watermelon".... Even better hitting you with it when you were a bit concentrating on the Zerg Rush of baddies coming at you .... It just got very repetative, like the lockpicking dialog and action. This was hyped as somekind of achievement in NPC behavior but really isnt much at all in the general situations and the canned 'special' scenes are not AI, just terrain triggered stuff. Testxyz (talk) 16:32, December 7, 2013 (UTC) 'FINALE :' Elizabeth catches up with the Luteces who are the real cause of all this and obliterates them with herself (she can kill them because she too is 'pan dimensional' ). SO in the end it was just all a dream.... Burial at Sea version Why is the Burial at Sea version listed as an alternate Elizabeth? It's confirmed here that this version is the same Elizabeth that accompanies the player in Infinite. Well, at least the Episode 1 Elizabeth is. If I understood Episode 2 correctly, Episode 2 is where it stops being prime Elizabth. -- 21:04, March 25, 2014 (UTC) :I concur. TenCents (talk to me!) 22:40, March 25, 2014 (UTC) :The real theory says that every tiniest moment of time YOU split into infinite seperate existances(for all of eternity) , so which one is supposed to be 'prime' anyway (whatever 'prime' means') "still remained after drowning DeWitt and causing a paradox within the multiverse concerning Comstock and Columbia." The whole point of a 'multiverse' existing is that THERE THEN IS NO PARADOX - each one is seperate and goes on its way with whatever happen in it (including apparently meddling from parallel universes) and there are infinite combinations. Its the whole reason this dim rejected theory was thought up - to eliminate the paradox of light being both a wave and made of particles at the same time. Unfortunately this 'theory' opens up more paradoxes/contradictions than the one its supposed to resolve. It BTW has nothing to do with Time travel, Crossing between parallel universes, godlike powers given to young women, really bad pretend history, or any other stuff they loaded into BS Infinity "Lutece Particle" Hmmmm. Cant wait to see the rest of this stuff.... "Lutece Particle" Hmmmm. Cant wait to see the rest of this stuff.... "SPOILER" Which Death? on this page it says that she died 1959, which she did, but then shes back, not like the Luteces but as a mortal (Luteces cant die, but Elizabeth can) and then she dies again at the end of episode 2 in 1960. should we add both? Shacob (talk) 16:17, March 27, 2014 (UTC) 1960? Pretty sure the New Year's Eve Riots took place on the eve of 1959. Jack enters the city in 1960, which is when the first game takes place. So, the real question is whether she died in 1958 or 1959. Key of Destiny (talk) 15:15, March 27, 2014 (UTC) :The New Year's Eve Riots started on the eve of 1958. 15:27, March 27, 2014 (UTC) :Oh well when Elizabeth has a bag on her head we can hear Atlas say something like: Kashmir here we come, and the after the doctor puts Elizabeth to sleep, she wakes up two weeks later, stated by Atlas. :Shacob (talk) 16:17, March 27, 2014 (UTC) : Er yeah, I meant the eve of 1958, because the Rapture Civil War lasted a single year: 1959, the year before Jack arrives in Rapture (1960). Key of Destiny (talk) 16:19, March 27, 2014 (UTC) oh, oops Elizabeth died in 1959. my bad Shacob (talk) 16:23, March 27, 2014 (UTC) :: That's only one Elizabeth, though. If she was born in 1893, then the Anna from the crib at the end of Infinite should be in her 60s at that point. Most people aren't dead by that age, so there's a good chance that while "Elizabeth" is dead, "Anna" is still alive well past the events of BaS II. This is why Anna and Elizabeth should have separate articles just like the Luteces. 08:55, March 31, 2014 (UTC) :: Well yes Anna is most likely alive but the Elizabeth we knew is dead. she jumped trough a tear to get to rapture so the laws of time and space was broken. :: Shacob (talk) 13:22, March 31, 2014 (UTC) :: How would that have broken the laws of space and time?Sir,Bitchalot (talk) 19:23, March 31, 2014 (UTC) :: The real laws of space and time - no Tears, no Multiverse, no multiple parallel Dimensions. Thats all misapplied science buzzwords used in the game to justify anything they want to happen. :: Rapture was largely Science Fiction. Columbia was fantasy and even its fantasy systems are contradictory. :: Applying the Fantasy system in Columbia - Elizabeth alont the path they portrayed supposedly reverted back to the child as if all the Columbia mess interfered. SO who is THIS new Elizabeth who is so 'hep' and shows up in Bookers (which one is he now ??) office in Rapture - not THAT baby so is something else different timeline/dimension .... all according to the system they say was how that games universe operated under. Now Ken utters the word 'prime' and magically whatever we saw in the other game is irrelevant/changes/whatever. No consistancy even in fantasy is hardly a mechanism to create any meaningful story that anyone seriously cares about :: (Center-Stage : Ken Levine wakes up laying on a pile of money, and says "Oh my, IT WAS ALL A DREAM !! " and laughs maniacally ... *Fade-out*) Oh! That was not what I was supposed to talk about at all... I most have goten of track somehow...The thing that I was really going to talk about was: Should we add the date of death, of when she died the first time in the Department store by a big daddy as well? Shacob (talk) 21:29, May 14, 2014 (UTC) This new BaS2 plot stuff... Elizabeth is still back in Columbia when Comstock is having her tortured/shock treatmented/fed various fun chemicals to condition here into being the Lamb of Columbia (or whatever). She has some pretty crazy dreams about going someplace under the sea.... ---- "Suchong then collaborated with Fink on each others products," Riiiight...... I kinda wonder if the writers of this game (DLC in particular) have any inkling about how technology is developed or what is required to be understood for modern technology (in this case genetic manipulation). They make it seem like Fink saw someone boiling tea and then came back and did it himself, except it was now complex genetic plasmids for which any tool he had was the equivalent of rubbing two sticks together. Well that old addage "Writing is easy, writing good is hard".... "Booker then fights her Big Daddy and seems to defeat it." When did this EVER happen before in the game ? Seem to defeat it ?? Every time we ever had to fight a Big Daddy, it was dead at the end not 'seemed defeated'. Isnt it so convenient that it just happens this one time. Seriously, they couldnt find a better way to handle this? "retrieve the Lutece Particle, return to Rapture, and by applying the particle to the top floor's ceiling can she lift the Department Store back up to Rapture and return them to the city." More technical magic. Elizabeth is now not just a god but a quantum mechanics mechanic ? She just 'applies the particle' ... Assuming that 'wave of the hand' achievement, How exactly is the store now to be reconnected to the city for Atlas and his thugs to get out ??? (how if it was disconnected, did it not instantly flood and or power/heat off have everyone inside dead virtually immediately of it being 'sunk' ???) Details like that dont seem to matter ... its a game .... its a hack job for the bucks "Eventually - Fink managed to have the Songbird imprint on his charge" : This happens when ? Wasnt that supposed to have been back when Elizabeth was younger? Strange because we see the Luteces are talking to Fitzroy around this time about events happening in the immediate timeframe of Infintes Columbia. Breaking canon much ? - What the hell are you talking about?? ( 10:41, April 13, 2014 (UTC)) The revised Columbia content of BaS2 has this stuff about Fink/Suchong trying to imprint a bond, but wouldnt that have happened with Songbird and Elizaneth much much earlier than any time the Luteces would be in conferenece with Daisy Fitzroy talking about big grown up Elizabeth at the time of Bookers visitation that appears in BaS2?? - Are you dense? Suchongs/ Fink interaction during the Columbia timeline has them interacting long before the events of Bioshock Infinite, when Elizabeth was a young baby or child (Did you not watch the short movie of young Liz and the whole "Lion with the thorn in its paw" bit?). This is evident as Suchong acknowledges that Fink had cut off connections once Fink found a way to have Songbird imprint on Elizabeth (Voxophone) and why his labratory was "moth-eaten". 18:49, April 14, 2014 (UTC) -- Strange that Suchong interacts with Fink from 10 years earlier and then with an Adult Elizabeth (from later in the Columbia's events) at nearly the same time. Hard to have claimed that this is the same Elizabeth/Columbia and the same Rapture (all that 'prime' crap...) All the weird visions that Elizabeth has in it makes it more like a dream sequence (maybe being had back on the electroshock table in Columbia). Best all round answer - the whole mess (Infinite - all of it including the BaS) is some ditzy broad that Suchong sold some of his 'good' Opium to. Chasing the Dragon. *SPOILER* Death = 1959 Burial at Sea - Episode 2 My question is: why do we have the game she died in next to her death date, when we don't have the game any other character died in next to there death date Elizabeth: Died 1959 (Burial at Sea - Episode 2) Andrew Ryan: Died 1960 We don't have "BioShock" next to hes death date. Shacob (talk) 06:17, April 27, 2014 (UTC) I believe that's because due to the nature of the Infinite multiverse, it's impossible to say if a character's death is their final death at all. Of course that's impossible to fit into the template, so they probably just chose one death (in the last game released), but specified which game they were referring to. 18:35, July 31, 2014 (UTC) Incorrect Assumtion in After the Revelation section Anna/Elizabeth loosing a body part does NOT seem to be a constant. Some of the other Elizabeth's in the ending of BSI have all their fingers. --Solarmech (talk) 11:31, June 17, 2014 (UTC) You may have to recheck to see if she has a pegleg You have to prove there is a pegleg. Unless there is sold proof of a constant it is just an assumtion. Not a fact.--Solarmech (talk) 19:24, June 17, 2014 (UTC) :Maybe they lost a toe. Based on what's been said by the creators, it seems to be a constant. If they didn't "leave apart of themselves" in another dimension, then HOW would they be able to open Tears? :Unownshipper (talk) 21:51, June 17, 2014 (UTC) Fingernail clippings or dandruff (probably making Booker a potential god too - possibly why/how he appears to Elizabeth in BaS2). This 'constant' thing is just a strange obsession of Elizabeth's as there are an infinity of other universes too (she might have been better off finding her way to a 'happy' Paris instead of fixating on the Bookers ... water under the bridge and all that (which you can also have better in Paris.) Hmmm "If they didn't "leave apart of themselves" in another dimension," we saw tears on statues and such in columbia (kinetoscope), so were their some pigeons who 'left' stuff after going thru other tears at various points?? --- If the creatorss said it was a constant, then let's see where they said it. As for "Leaving Parts of Yourself" in other dimensions. I think some people are taking it wrong. It's more like the person being split between two dimensions. Not that there are pieces of the person in two different dimensions. But that the person was split into two peices by dimensional forces. In Anna's case it was the portal closing and severing her finger. --Solarmech (talk) 07:34, June 18, 2014 (UTC) Do strands of hair qualify? Exactly how much tissue/matter does it take to qualify for this? Sally mustve got it in spades. (does one have to survive this seperation? or is godhood instilled bringing transcendence and a flavor of zombiefication (or maybe Fink could put the head quickly on a Handyman rig ??) The possibilities are endless. Its all whatever they say it is. This is like the least of the pseudo-science issues . :Okay...your stream of consciousness is clearly running at a tsunami force, please sign your posts. In response to Solarmech, how can you be sure that simply travelling from one's original dimension to a new one (if that is indeed what you are asserting) is what causes the powers? Wouldn't that mean Booker should gain them too? Note how when Elizabeth loses her powers in Burial at Sea - Episode 2, she regains her pinky :From The Source of Her Power: :transcript = What makes the girl different? I suspect it has less to do with what she is, and rather more with what she is not. A small part of her remains from where she came. It would seem the universe does not like its peas mixed with its porridge. :Doesn't this seem to confirm it's the severed digit? It's fantasy psuedo-science trying desperately to be presented as possible, but it's just a game. We're just trying to make sense of it. Unownshipper (talk) 21:36, June 18, 2014 (UTC) "It would seem the universe does not like its peas mixed with its porridge." '' '' Interpretted as not being where its supposed to be. But if its a case of '''not like, then shouldnt it result in some messy explosion like the classic Sci-Fi scenario when two of the same person meet from parallel universes they cancel out each other, or some rubberband like snapping back of the continuum to its proper state... (or the interdimensional cops showing up to put the Luteces in the pan-dimensional hoossgow for their meddling) But then this is her theory. Rosalind doesnt seem to have done an experiment to try to support her theory (she would mention that?) -OR- this whole story mess IS her experiment - playing with peoples lives in multiple dimensions. Elizabeth seriously needed to go after the Luteces if she truly wants revenge for all the woes - instead of Booker/Comstock who are just pawns. 00:36, June 19, 2014 (UTC) :"then shouldnt it result in some messy explosion like the classic Sci-Fi scenario when two of the same person meet from parallel universes they cancel out each other"...No. No, it absolutely shouldn't have to. Or, more specifically, it doesn't have to. All of this is theoretical science fiction, AKA impossible to test/prove. There's no reason that the pseudo-science presented in this piece of media has to follow the science presented in some other game, book, movie, etc. If we assume everything in narrative fiction has to operate similarly, then we are less inclined to take risks with new material. :It's not fair of you to say this is "her theory." Levine and the creators intentionally had Rosalind Lutece explain the phenomenon this way to represent their explanation of how Tears work. Who else would explain it? It'd be pretty farcical to have Jeremiah Fink, Daisy Fitzroy, or even Zachary Hale Comstock try to explain it. If she says this is how they work, we must take it as "word of God," so to speak. Otherwise, we're over complicating an already messy narrative. :Are we still trying to blame the Luteces for the evil shit Comstock does? Listen to the Voxophone A Window again. It's clear that their intentions for the Lutece Device were purely scientific, but Comstock . I believe it too. Someone can be book smart and create an amazing invention but not street smart enough to recognize their financier has less than honorable intentions for it. :Unownshipper (talk) 18:44, June 19, 2014 (UTC) While the Luteces certainly are not culpable in everything that COmstock did or had planned, they certainly are responsiable for Anna being taken from Booker and turning her into a killer. As well as at least one torture and murder (The Lighthouse Keeper). The Luteces may be funny, but they are NOT nice people by any means. (Comedic Sociopath) --Solarmech (talk) 19:37, June 19, 2014 (UTC) They are the ones who let evil in one universe spill over into another (they actually facilitate it as part of their 'mind experiment' - ....since its 'real' thats not the right term). 124 other Bookers yanked out of their own reality (so far) to be subjected to all the fun possible in this Columbia (too bad they didnt pop in and encounter the Spider Splicer Booker (sharpening his scythes) and not get away before he disemboweled them - that might teach them...) blame the Luteces for the evil shit Comstock does - yep he (Comstock) wouldnt be the tyrant he was without their facilitating him (Woundere Knee happened 1890 Columbias launch 1893 ... kinda a short interval even for this falavor of unreality. Booker born 1974 ... so he's 19 years old then too - imagine a messed up teenager being involved with all this stuff..... Explains a bit then ?). As for Rosalin's theory - they are made to be revised, though she might not get much of a chance if some cataclysmic side-effect occurs she didnt expect (and deserves) 06:14, June 20, 2014 (UTC) Elizabeth's Legal Nationality Probably won't be put up anyplace, but might be worth thinking about. Legaly Elizabeth is an American. She was kidnapped from the US and taken to Columbia. But her official legal status will not have changed. Columbia may claim she is a citizen, but since she was taken as a minor and she herself never renounced her US citizenship (as the people of Columbia did), it has not legaly changed. I doubt Elizabrth herself really cares if she is a US Citizen though, but she certainly does not want be a Columbia one. Are we going to both putting partial native american decent in her description? She is Booker's child after all. ;) (Yes, that is a joke.) --Solarmech (talk) 20:18, June 26, 2014 (UTC) Last Name? So recent conflict over Elizabeth's surname got my attention (And I am assuming yours to) so I'm setting the discussion here to stop unnecessary edits and undues. We took up the subject in Jack's talk page some time ago and the only time Elizabeth is called "Elizabeth Comestock" is by Andrew Ryan in Burial at Sea - Episode 2 in the elevator to Frank Fontaine suite. So what do you think? Shacob (talk) 19:37, June 29, 2014 (UTC) :Obviously when Comstock abducted Anna Dewitt he didn't just change her name to Elizabeth. He would of given her his own surname Comstock. Since the page is named after the name Zachary Comstock gave her then we should include the surname too. :(Night at the Kashmir (talk) 19:50, June 29, 2014 (UTC)) ::Any attempt to give Elizabeth a surname would be a pointless effort as she had her name taken away and she never seems to choose another one. When Zachary Hale Comstock abducted her, he gave her his surname. If you're held hostage and someone tells you your last name is now the same as there's does that make it so? Hell no! ::The other option is that her surname is "DeWitt" as this was her birth name. However, just as renaming Jack, "Jack Ryan" would be problematic/spoilerific, so too would naming Elizabeth "Elizabeth DeWitt." ::One's surname is more than just a signifier of who your parents are/who raised you. When Elizabeth learns the truth about Comstock, she repeatedly rejects him ("I'm NOT your daughter"). There's NO WAY that she'd willingly keep calling herself "Elizabeth Comstock" afterwards. It seems unlikely that she'd call herself "Elizabeth DeWitt" either. Anna DeWitt metaphorically "died" the night she was taken through the Tear, and like Zachary Comstock at the baptism, she was "reborn" as "Elizabeth" (the only difference is she had no choice in the matter). She's just "Elizabeth." ::Burial at Sea complicates things (once again). In Episode 2, Andrew Ryan addresses her as "Miss Comstock," but she says to "Booker" over the Radio something along the lines of, "We DeWitts just can't let things be…" (or something like that). ::Did she falsify a Rapture document so that she could stalk Rapture's "Booker DeWitt?" If she did, that'd explain why Ryan calls her that. She couldn't call herself "DeWitt," that'd draw too much attention (especially from her intended victim). Whatever the explanation, there's no reason to give Elizabeth a surname. ::Unownshipper (talk) 20:39, June 29, 2014 (UTC) :::I think the reason that Ryan calls her "Miss Comstock" is that he had been studying her for some time and figured out that she was "the" Elizabeth from Columbia, but not knowing her true history. After all why would Ryan offer her a job, if he wasn't rather sure about her ablities. As Unownshipper says there is no reason to give her a surname. --Solarmech (talk) 12:31, June 30, 2014 (UTC) Elizabeth's/Anna's Birthdate? We know Booker's birthday. But have we ever heard Elizabeth's/Anna's birthday. Comstock certainly faked one for Elizabeth (October 8 1893 most likley) but I wonder what the real one is. --Solarmech (talk) 06:48, August 5, 2014 (UTC) :I don't think it's ever given. :Unownshipper (talk) 02:36, August 6, 2014 (UTC) Tears just start opening up... Much hillarity ensued when a tear opened up to planet LV-426 and a visitor came through to Rapture and Columbia.... The version in part 1 is well known to be the same as the Elizabeth we know from the main game, as made evident by the thumble on her finger. However, this version was killed by the Big Daddy as we realise in part 2, not soon after being drawn attention to the fact that she is shorter and has all her fingers intact. It is then explained that this version of Elizabeth, after having regret of leaving with Sally in danger, desides to use the Lutece Twins to help her enter a reality of which she stayed to help Sally, ultimately being killed by the big daddy. And then of course we know that in return of getting a second chance of saving Sally and to fix her mistake of leaving her behind she does have to lose her powers. However some people who are reverting my edits are saying that this is the same version of Elizabeth, even though it is made VERY CLEAR that she is NOT the same. I thought this would go without saying, but no, she did not shrink a few inches, regrow her little finger and change clothes in the time between part 1 and 2. Heck you even SEE the taller version with the thumble - clearly the one in the main game and part 1 - lying dead infront of you at the start. How could, let's say Version A Elizabeth, leave rapture, have a moral dilema, find and consult the Lutece Twins, use them to re-enter Rapture, discover her own dead body, rescue Sally and her version ultimately dying (again) all while lying dead in the wall? Dakirel (talk) 18:30, September 16, 2014 (UTC) The alternative Elizabeth in Burial at Sea part 2 The version in part 1 is well known to be the same as the Elizabeth we know from the main game, as made evident by the thumble on her finger. However, this version was killed by the Big Daddy as we realise in part 2, not soon after being drawn attention to the fact that she is shorter and has all her fingers intact. It is then explained that this version of Elizabeth, after having regret of leaving with Sally in danger, desides to use the Lutece Twins to help her enter a reality of which she stayed to help Sally, ultimately being killed by the big daddy. And then of course we know that in return of getting a second chance of saving Sally and to fix her mistake of leaving her behind she does have to lose her powers. However some people who are reverting my edits are saying that this is the same version of Elizabeth, even though it is made VERY CLEAR that she is NOT the same. I thought this would go without saying, but no, she did not shrink a few inches, regrow her little finger and change clothes in the time between part 1 and 2. Heck you even SEE the taller version with the thumble - clearly the one in the main game and part 1 - lying dead infront of you at the start. How could, let's say Version A Elizabeth, leave rapture, have a moral dilema, find and consult the Lutece Twins, use them to re-enter Rapture, discover her own dead body, rescue Sally and her version ultimately dying (again) all while lying dead in the wall? Dakirel (talk) 18:30, September 16, 2014 (UTC) : The Elizabeth in Burial at Sea Part 2 is indeed the same Elizabeth we see throughout Infinite and Part 1. The game stresses this as Elizabeth recalls what actually happens and remembers all of the events prior to the point the player plays as her, no alternate paths or dialogue of an event that the player didn't experience. The moment that Elizabeth died sometime between part 1 and part 2, Elizabeth removed herself, or her state of being rather, out of Rapture believing that her business there was done. Therefor, one Elizabeth's death by the hands of a Big Daddy and the one, we the player, play as. Alternate Elizabeth's would be like the aged Elizabeth who bought the player in Infinite to an alternate future or the multiple Elizabeth's at the end of Infinite, or the many alternate Bookers including the Comstock acting as Booker in Rapture. Basically, if we as the player play a certain character throughout, they are indeed the same and NOT an alternate version because we see the story unfold through their eyes. Tricksteroffools (talk) 18:47, September 16, 2014 (UTC) ::We already know what Elizabeth is capible of experiancing the same memories and feelings as alternative versions of herself, as etablished by her empathy and identification with the version that was beheaded by Comstock. Furthermore, she is evidently shocked when she finds her own dead body, and THEN she recovers memories of what happened. It seems odd that she'd remember Comstock dying as well as her bound with Sally without even remembering that she died. The game stresses the exect opposite, it brings attention attention to how her height is different and her pinkie is intact. If age counts, then growing up to be an entirely different height certainly does. Also, the fact that the both are controled by the player doesn't really mean anything. There are tons of games out there that you change characters halfway through, even the whole Burial at Sea story follows two completely different charaters taken controled by the player. As long as the player knows the characters and backs their intentions, there really isn't a problem in switching to an albeit marginally different character. Dakirel (talk) 19:16, September 16, 2014 (UTC) ::- ::When is implied that other alternate Elizabeths are capable of experiencing the same memories? Like the Booker we've known and played as, the player begins to learn of the alternate selves including Booker himself. This makes him the main timeline Booker. So he has the knowledge of alternate selves thus far, just as Elizabeth has of hers. Notice how alternate selves such as aged Elizabeth don't recall any of the alternate's experience, just what they remember from their timeline. Even while playing as "Booker" in Burial at Sea, he does not recall his previous life until Elizabeth triggers a memory. Even then, that Comstock only recalls what happened in his timeline/ lifetime (Accidently causing the death of baby Anna and traversing to Rapture). And how exactly does the game show a height difference? I never heard a comment from her that she was shorter or implied height comparisons. Her pinkie is intact due to what the game calls, a quantam superposition. It was only when Elizabeth returned to a world where she died that she became normal and therefore mortal.Tricksteroffools (talk) 19:32, September 16, 2014 (UTC)